House Speaker John Boehner has invited Pope Francis to speak to both houses of Congress.

Odd, isn't it? A Protestant government inviting an unelected, absolute dictator for life whom the founders of various Protestant churches all said was the antichrist of Bible prophecy.

By 1870 the US Congress had pulled funding from the diplomatic mission in Rome, causing it to close and ending US diplomatic ties to the papacy, the only church the US has ever sent an ambassador to, as far as I know. Given how strict we tend to me about the separation of church and state, it is strange that we would send an ambassador to the Vatican under Reagan.

Why did the US Congress pull funding back then? Because it had heard that the papacy was not allowing Protestant services to be held in Rome, something to that effect. Are things different today? Does the Vatican permit Protestant services within its walls?

John 17:11 Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.

Jesus above is calling God the Father "Holy Father." It's the only place where the title occurs in the Bible. Even Pope John Paul II said in Crossing the Threshold of Hope that "Holy Father" (and "your Holiness") as applied to the pope sounds "inimical" or hostile to the gospel, since Jesus said to call no man you father. And yet Time quotes Boehner at http://time.com/23805/pope-francis-john-boehner-nancy-pelosi-congress/ as saying:

Quote from: John Boehner, Speaker of the House

"The Holy Father’s pastoral message challenges people of all faiths, ideologies and political parties."

Boehner has some explaining to do. Why did he in the above words call the pope God, since that is the only person the words "Holy Father" refer to in Scripture? Why did he use words even John Paul II said sound hostile to the gospel?